Bush is a lier. He lied in his campaign promises.

March 26, 2001

IN AMERICA

The Mask Comes Off

By BOB HERBERT

			• Op-Ed Columns Archive
			• Join a Discussion on Bob Herbert

s this what the electorate wanted?

Did Americans really want a president who would smile in the faces of poor children even as he was scheming to cut their benefits? Did they want a man who would fight like crazy for enormous tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting funds for programs to help abused and neglected kids?

Is that who George W. Bush turned out to be?

An article by The Times's Robert Pear disclosed last week that President Bush will propose cuts in the already modest funding for child- care assistance for low-income families. And he will propose cuts in funding for programs designed to investigate and combat child abuse. And he wants cuts in an important new program to train pediatricians and other doctors at children's hospitals across the U.S.

The cuts are indefensible, unconscionable. If implemented, they will hurt many children.

The president also plans to cut off all of the money provided by Congress for an "early learning" trust fund, which is an effort to improve the quality of child care and education for children under 5.

What's going on?

That snickering you hear is the sound of Mr. Bush recalling the great fun he had playing his little joke on the public during the presidential campaign. He presented himself as a different kind of Republican, a friend to the downtrodden, especially children. He hijacked the copyrighted slogan of the liberal Children's Defense Fund, and then repeated the slogan like a mantra, telling anyone who would listen that his administration would "leave no child behind."

Mr. Bush has only been president two months and already he's leaving the children behind.

There are many important reasons to try to expand the accessibility of child care. One is that stable child care for low-income families has become a cornerstone of successful efforts to move people from welfare to work.

Members of Congress had that in mind when they allocated $2 billion last year for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. That was an increase of $817 million, enabling states to provide day care to 241,000 additional children.

Now comes Mr. Bush with a proposal to cut the program by $200 million.

Is that his idea of compassion?

The simple truth is that the oversized tax cuts and Mr. Bush's devotion to the ideologues and the well- heeled special interests that backed his campaign are playing havoc with the real-world interests not just of children, but of most ordinary Americans.

Mr. Bush is presiding over a right- wing juggernaut that has already reneged on his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions (an important step in the fight against global warming); that has repealed a set of workplace safety rules that were designed to protect tens of millions of Americans but were opposed as too onerous by business groups; that has withdrawn new regulations requiring a substantial reduction in the permissible levels of arsenic, a known carcinogen, in drinking water; and that has (to the loud cheers of the most conservative elements in the G.O.P.) ended the American Bar Association's half- century-old advisory role in the selection of federal judges, thus making it easier to appoint judges with extreme right-wing sensibilities.

The administration of George W. Bush, in the words of the delighted Edwin J. Feulner, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, is "more Reaganite than the Reagan administration."

Grover Norquist, a leading conservative strategist, said quite frankly, "There isn't an us and them with this administration. They is us. We is them."

Mr. Bush misled the public during his campaign. He eagerly donned the costume of the compassionate conservative and deliberately gave the impression that if elected he would lead a moderate administration that would govern, as much as possible, in a bipartisan manner.

Last October, in the second presidential debate, Mr. Bush declared, "I'm really strongly committed to clean water and clean air and cleaning up the new kinds of challenges, like global warming."

And he said, as usual, "No child should be left behind in America."

He said all the right things. He just didn't mean them.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Answers

Bob Herbert is an ultra liberal African American that has been on GWB’s case from the get go. Like all of us, his right to express his opinion should be respected, laughable as it may be.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

What difference does the color of his skin make? His political leanings, but does naming his skin color change what he says or what anyone should think about what he rights?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

What difference does the color of his skin make? His political leanings, but does naming his skin color change what he says or what anyone should think about what he writes?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Ms. Cherri, do you have a problem with Bob being an African American or an ultra liberal? Are you offended by the terminology? If so, why?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

SlowCraps=Anonymous racist hick from some Texas shithole.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Mr. Paulie, you wannanotha cracker?

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Socrates: On Doc Paulie, I ASSURE you that you don't know WTF you're talking about. Parrot? Parrot who? Your responses remind me of those on the Y2k forum wherein *I* was asked, "Polly, wanta cracker?" Wasn't THAT outstandingly intelligent!

The ONE thing I can say about Doc is that he's his OWN person. He's DEFINITELY not a liberal. *I*'m a liberal, and if he thought ANYTHING like me, I wouldn't have had a desire to reach out and choke him while he drove me to his home in LV. He's capable of putting the stops on his thoughts when he chooses. Afterall, he had a pond-scum, bleeding heart liberal in his house for several days and never even raised his voice at me. He's not a right-winger EITHER. He REALLY IS a centrist, who has his OWN thoughts about things, and ain't THAT in short demand these days.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Caution Ms. Anita, you are jumping to an analogy that doesn’t fit here. You would be amazed at WTF I know about Mr. Paulie. He likes to pull on chains and I enjoy yanking his leash. Forgive us lowly souls that are not part of the LVGBS, as we have no touchy feely history to restrain our coms to you’all.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Just another meme.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Socrates:

I don't accept your response. You're the one who has accused Doc of being a parrot, and on this thread said something about wanting another cracker. If he's "parroting" someone, I'd like to know who.

I doubt that we'd disagree on his stubborn nature, his inherent ability to "think out of the box", and his forthrightness in presenting his opinions. I didn't need to meet the guy IRL to understand that he's not "parroting." I didn't need to meet the guy IRL to understand that he's not a liberal, nor a socialist, nor [dare I say] a commie. You and I BOTH may disagree with his opinions on things, but "parroting" must be reserved for someone else. This guy likes birds, but a parrot, he is NOT.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Well Ms. Anita, you have once again jumped to an erroneous conclusion. If you take the time to read the posts, you will see I was simply comparing Mr. Paulie to the famous movie parrot of the same name. You know the bird I speak of….big mouth and all. But you have taken that to mean I am suggesting that Mr. Paulie was ‘parroting’ the words or thoughts of someone else. Another in a long line of your foolish deductions. A common trait of the liberal community.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

do you have a problem with Bob being an African American or an ultra liberal? Are you offended by the terminology? If so, why? I have no problem with anyones ethnic background or political leanings. I wondered why it was necessary for you to bring up the color of his skin, as if pointing it out made it relevent to article. Did it?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

You know the bird I speak of….big mouth and all.

I do?

Please point me in the direction of the "liberal community." As much as I enjoy the diversity of opinions offered both on the internet and IRL, I wouldn't mind engaging in some conversation with like-minded folks for a few days. My first question would be, "Do some people look at you and think they know more about you than you know yourself?"

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

“I wondered why it was necessary for you to bring up the color of his skin, as if pointing it out made it relevent to article. Did it?”

IMHO Ms. Cherri, it was extremely relevant. The African American community voted overwhelmingly democratic (90%+) in the presidential election. This group has been the most negatively vocal over the election of GWB, and one would expect them to look at the republican party as the source of the reduction of public assistance programs that they so covet.

When a spokesman from a special interest group writes an article of this nature it is very relevant to identify where this person is coming from. Call it whatever you choose it still is the truth.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Go here Ms. Anita and the truth shall set you free.

http://www.freezone.com/paulie/paulie.html

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Thanks, Soc. I don't keep up with the latest movies. There are enough that I've missed in the past two years that when I'm in the mood for a movie, the TV showings suffice. So we have a movie that showed a parrot who didn't parrot what OTHERS thought, but what he himself thought? This parrot was named Paulie. It would have saved a lot of time had you used this association upfront, rather than assume all of us kept up with the latest box office hits/dogs.

MY guess is that Paulie the poster hangs on to his "handle" because if he posted under Stephen, folks would do the Brian/Brian mistake that Charlie did a while back. Afterall, this IS Stephen's forum.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Hahhahaaa Paulie, love it!

Anyhow the "handle" started at the old Biffy webboard(GNIBFI). Needed something to call myself and the thing originally was Paula Jones Milne. After several "committee meetings" it was shortened to Doc Paulie. Means ZERO SlowCraps. You of course know this cause you know, right?

BTW, are you Steve Heller by any chance?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

one would expect them to look at the republican party as the source of the reduction of public assistance programs that they so covet.

Blacks covet public assistance? You honestly believe that Black Americans want to be on welfare? That that is thier goal in life? That that is the most (or even least) important thing in their lives? It was but 30 years ago that Blacks were not even allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites, do you think they were "allowed" to persue careers which enabled them to live a comfortable life? And to be a female black and expect the oppertunity to work was but an unrealistic dream. Society and people with your mentality drovethese women into the welfare rolls, where they were slapped down whenever they tried to better themselves. Geeze, what choice would anyone make when they could work in subservant, dehuminizing positions or save themselves the degradation and exist on welfare. You actually believe that being on welfare is the goal of black people? You are one mentally sick person.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Bill Clinton signed what Welfare legislation SlowCraps?

Like I said, racist hick from a texas shithole.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Hey SlowCraps, want some crackers?

http://www.cswnet.com /~dgh/9untitled.html

Have fun!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

‘Steve Heller’ Mr. Paulie? Don’t think so.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001